June 18th, 2014

Why did we just get notice on this yesterday? ?????

Today was the day that the EQB hosts EPA rule listening session, but it was more like certain “stakeholders” voiced their opinion, got presentation time, access to the power point, and though first it was staff, and then Mark Seely, our renown climatologist, the discussion was dominated by Xcel Energy, Great River Energy, and Great Plains Institute, all entities with a strong interest in the promotion of transmission.

The question I have is…well, there are several, but a primary one is “What is the EQB’s role in this?”

Seems to me that the EPA is going to delegate this to the states, as with other air emissions, and what I’m seeing is jockeying for position by “stakeholders” who are paid to be there or who are profiting from generating CO2, working to assure that the weakest possible regulation is adopted. They’re going for the “consensus” approach, meaning that they’re gathering up as many names as they can, and want to say that here’s the “consensus” so it must be OK. Well, no, it’s not…

I urged them to consider the policy impacts of this massive transmission build-out that enables marketing of all that coal.

June 17th, 2014

Where to start… in addition to just one day’s notice, look at the presenters, skewed towards “Coal on the Wires” where they can explain how it’s all about wind, an important concept as we consider what these EPA regulations mean. From this vantage point, it’s my understanding that with the new regulations, it might have an impact of maybe 7% decrease in use of coal for electrical generation. Bears more review.

Here are the EPA regs they’ll be talking about, and it’s open for Comment until some time n September:

All promoters of transmission, “Coal on the Wires,” otherwise known as CapX 2020 plus. Here’s CapX 2020, look at those North Dakota references:

And the map, again, look where it starts:

Add this:

And the MISO Multi-Value Project list of 17 transmission projects:

And folks, with all that transmission, here in the Midwest, we’re most of the way to JSCP:

As Xcel’s Tim Carlsgaard argued the other day, there are no plans for new coal… Well, when CapX 2020 was at the PUC for the Certificate of Need, MISO’s Jeff Webb testified that there was 3,441 of new coal in ND, SD, IA and MN in the MISO queue (and over 7,000 MW of wind in the Illinois queue). And we know that transmission for coal pays, and oh, how it pays:

You can see how the “new” CapX 2020, JCSP, and MISO MVP plans have built on the foundation of Lignite Vision 21 and WRAO/WIREs. Yea, but that’s still old news. Sure, but there’s a lot to be said about learning from history. And then there’s this matter of trajectory, we can see where this is going.

As I noted on No CapX2020 not long ago, here’s what’s up with coal right now:

Not one North Dakota coal plant has been shut down.

Minnesota Power has purchased the “coal line” coming from North Dakota into Northern Minnesota, and once CapX 2020 is up and running at the western end, they’ll put that coal generation on CapX.

Read the federal judge’s decision on the Next Generation Energy Act, declaring it unconstitutional. First, the decision notes that the Dry Fork coal plant has been moved from the West into the Eastern Interconnect (it’s “new coal” now on transmission heading our way that wasn’t coming here before).

Don’t forget that there is not one single Renewable Energy Standard/Mandate that requires any coal be shut down. It only requires addition of “renewable” generation. Think about that. If we shut down the coal, for instance the North Dakota coal where CapX starts, there would be plenty of transmission capacity for wind and the back up gas or hydro to firm it up. DOH! So if the enviros and those supporting RES across the country are serious about stopping coal, why aren’t they including requirements to shut down coal, and why are they promoting transmission? It doesn’t reduce emissions, doesn’t reduce CO2 or anything else, it just adds wind generation on top of an admitted surplus. Why support and promote transmission, and not require shut down of coal? Well, they are getting paid to support and promote transmission.

And speaking of Great Plains Institute…. GPI has long been trying, as Bill Grant did, to “find a way forward for coal” (Walton’s Bill Grant and “low carbon coal”). Remember Great Plains and all they did for money on coal gasification? Here’s just a bit of it:

And speaking of the EPA, here’s a settlement where they caved in exclusion of coal gasification as BACT (DOH, how could it be when it’s not happening? The EPA was right, and the IGCC toadies pushed for inclusion of coal gasification and got this settlement, and how much money was attached to that? Furthering the IGCC: Pipedreams of Clean and Green is not in anyone’s interest.):

We must remember history and hopefully not repeat it. There’s the established history of transmission planning for coal, and there’s the established history of “environmental” NGOs supporting coal gasification and transmission for money. As they discuss these new EPA regulations and the potential impact, remember that they put their mouth where their money is.

Meanwhile, about those Comments to the EPA? Again, here’s what’s at issue: